Re: python debug packages
Vincent Bernat writes: > The page seems up-to-date It makes no reference to why ‘foo-dbgsym’ is not enough, so the reader doesn't have any guidance on which practice overrules the other. > and already explains why Python is different (presence of a debug > interpreter) As I said, that doesn't explain it. Please consider that someone reading those instructions may have no more sophisticated idea of debug symbol packages than “I heard that they are done automatically now, so I'll just rely on that”. So this: > and that the -dbg package contains the symbols for the regular > extensions as well as the unstripped extensions for the debug > interpreter. doesn't address the confusion, I think. -- \“If you go parachuting, and your parachute doesn't open, and | `\you friends are all watching you fall, I think a funny gag | _o__) would be to pretend you were swimming.” —Jack Handey | Ben Finney
Re: python debug packages
❦ 11 octobre 2016 10:38 CEST, Ben Finney : >> Reading >> https://wiki.debian.org/Python/LibraryStyleGuide#Building_python_-dbg_packages, >> there is some hints to this > > The introduction of ‘foo-dbgsym’ automatic generated packages makes me > quite sure those instructions are obsolete. But perhaps they are not? > >> but it's not clear that only automatic debug packages work for Python >> packages. Would it make sense to update the wiki page and say "don't >> migrate to dbgsym packages as Python needs debug extensions and not >> only debug symbols"? > > Reading that reference again, I am not much wiser. It does not reference > ‘foo-dbgsym’ packages so the reader doesn't know which instructions are > to be followed. > > Could someone who understands *why* ‘foo-dbgsym’ is not sufficient, > please update the wiki page to be explicit about what is special to > Python and under what specific circumstances we still need ‘foo-dbg’ > packages. The page seems up-to-date and already explains why Python is different (presence of a debug interpreter) and that the -dbg package contains the symbols for the regular extensions as well as the unstripped extensions for the debug interpreter. -- When one burns one's bridges, what a very nice fire it makes. -- Dylan Thomas signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: python debug packages
Iustin Pop writes: > Reading > https://wiki.debian.org/Python/LibraryStyleGuide#Building_python_-dbg_packages, > there is some hints to this The introduction of ‘foo-dbgsym’ automatic generated packages makes me quite sure those instructions are obsolete. But perhaps they are not? > but it's not clear that only automatic debug packages work for Python > packages. Would it make sense to update the wiki page and say "don't > migrate to dbgsym packages as Python needs debug extensions and not > only debug symbols"? Reading that reference again, I am not much wiser. It does not reference ‘foo-dbgsym’ packages so the reader doesn't know which instructions are to be followed. Could someone who understands *why* ‘foo-dbgsym’ is not sufficient, please update the wiki page to be explicit about what is special to Python and under what specific circumstances we still need ‘foo-dbg’ packages. -- \“With Lisp or Forth, a master programmer has unlimited power | `\ and expressiveness. With Python, even a regular guy can reach | _o__) for the stars.” —Raymond Hettinger | Ben Finney
Re: python debug packages
On 14.05.2016 23:26, Iustin Pop wrote: On 2016-04-22 19:36:12, Matthias Klose wrote: On 22.04.2016 16:58, Jean-Michel Vourgère wrote: Hi Now that debug symbols are automatically generated in -dbgsym packages, how do you handle the debug /usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/.x86_64-linux-gnu_d.so files? They used to go in a generic -dbg package. […] - Do not migrate to new style -dbgsym packages and keep everything in rrtool-dbg, like it is now. that would be my preferred solution. Reading https://wiki.debian.org/Python/LibraryStyleGuide#Building_python_-dbg_packages, there is some hints to this, but it's not clear that only automatic debug packages work for Python packages. Would it make sense to update the wiki page and say "don't migrate to dbgsym packages as Python needs debug extensions and not only debug symbols"? sounds fine.
Re: python debug packages
On 2016-04-22 19:36:12, Matthias Klose wrote: > On 22.04.2016 16:58, Jean-Michel Vourgère wrote: > > Hi > > > > Now that debug symbols are automatically generated in -dbgsym packages, > > how do you handle the debug > > /usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/.x86_64-linux-gnu_d.so files? > > > > They used to go in a generic -dbg package. […] > > - Do not migrate to new style -dbgsym packages and keep everything in > > rrtool-dbg, like it is now. > > that would be my preferred solution. Reading https://wiki.debian.org/Python/LibraryStyleGuide#Building_python_-dbg_packages, there is some hints to this, but it's not clear that only automatic debug packages work for Python packages. Would it make sense to update the wiki page and say "don't migrate to dbgsym packages as Python needs debug extensions and not only debug symbols"? thanks, iustin
Re: python debug packages
On 22.04.2016 16:58, Jean-Michel Vourgère wrote: Hi Now that debug symbols are automatically generated in -dbgsym packages, how do you handle the debug /usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/.x86_64-linux-gnu_d.so files? They used to go in a generic -dbg package. I'm thinking about rrdtool, and it already has a lot of packages: https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/rrdtool I'm considering creating a specific python-rrdtool-dbg package. Other options I can think of are: - Put the debug .so file into the main python-rrdtool package no, that would add dependencies on the python-dbg packages by default. - Do not migrate to new style -dbgsym packages and keep everything in rrtool-dbg, like it is now. that would be my preferred solution. - Stop bothering about this debug .so file, and trash it. please don't.
python debug packages
Hi Now that debug symbols are automatically generated in -dbgsym packages, how do you handle the debug /usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/.x86_64-linux-gnu_d.so files? They used to go in a generic -dbg package. I'm thinking about rrdtool, and it already has a lot of packages: https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/rrdtool I'm considering creating a specific python-rrdtool-dbg package. Other options I can think of are: - Put the debug .so file into the main python-rrdtool package - Do not migrate to new style -dbgsym packages and keep everything in rrtool-dbg, like it is now. - Stop bothering about this debug .so file, and trash it. Any suggestion anyone?
Re: Package relationships for python debug packages
Christian Kastner writes: > In http://wiki.debian.org/Python/DbgBuilds, we argued for ‘Recommends: > python-dbg’ if the package can be used without the debug interpreter > (eg: it contains the stripped debugging symbols for use with gdb); > otherwise, ‘Depends: python-dbg’. That covers it. Thank you. -- \ “What I have to do is see, at any rate, that I do not lend | `\ myself to the wrong which I condemn.” —Henry Thoreau, _Civil | _o__)Disobedience_ | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/878w1tst5y@benfinney.id.au
Re: Package relationships for python debug packages
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 13:23:35 +1100, Ben Finney wrote: > Howdy all, > > What relationship should be declared between a binary ‘python-foo-dbg’ > package and the ‘python-dbg’ package? > > I can't remember the rationale, but the consensus was not what I > expected. Should the binary package ‘Depends: python-dbg’, or should it > instead ‘Recommends: python-dbg’? What's the rationale? In http://wiki.debian.org/Python/DbgBuilds, we argued for ‘Recommends: python-dbg’ if the package can be used without the debug interpreter (eg: it contains the stripped debugging symbols for use with gdb); otherwise, ‘Depends: python-dbg’. Christian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/a307b6fa2010da4b1ee8befdef834...@kvr.at
Package relationships for python debug packages
Howdy all, What relationship should be declared between a binary ‘python-foo-dbg’ package and the ‘python-dbg’ package? My search-fu must be weak today. I remember a discussion somewhere regarding Python extensions in C and the resulting ‘python-foo-dbg’ package. I can't remember the rationale, but the consensus was not what I expected. Should the binary package ‘Depends: python-dbg’, or should it instead ‘Recommends: python-dbg’? What's the rationale? -- \ “I cannot conceive that anybody will require multiplications at | `\ the rate of 40,000 or even 4,000 per hour …” —F. H. Wales, 1936 | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87aamaudi0@benfinney.id.au
